News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk explains why Blue Origin’s Starship lawsuit makes no sense
For the first time since SpaceX competitor Blue Origin took NASA to federal court after losing a Moon lander contract to Starship and a protest over that loss, unsealed documents have finally revealed the argument Jeff Bezos’ space startup is focusing on in court.
After the details broke in new court documents filed on Wednesday, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk weighed in on Twitter to offer his take on why the arguments Blue Origin has hinged its lawsuit on make very little sense.
While one seemingly significant portion of the main complaint claiming to reveal “additional substantial errors” in SpaceX’s Starship HLS proposal was almost fully redacted, most of the opening argument is legible. In short, Blue Origin appears to have abandoned the vast majority of arguments it threw about prior to suing NASA and the US government and is now almost exclusively hinging its case on the claim that SpaceX violated NASA’s procurement process by failing to account for a specific kind of prelaunch review before every HLS-related Starship launch.
For NASA’s HLS competition, SpaceX proposed to create a custom variant of Starship capable of serving as a single-stage-to-orbit crewed Moon lander with the help of the rest of the Starship fleet – including Super Heavy boosters, cargo/tanker Starships, and a depot or storage ship. SpaceX would begin a Moon landing campaign by launching a (likely heavily modified) depot Starship into a stable Earth orbit. Anywhere from 8 to 14 Starship tanker missions – each carrying around 100-150 tons of propellant – would then gradually fill that depot ship over the course of no more than six or so months. Once filled, an HLS lander would launch to orbit, refill its tanks from the depot ship, and make its way to an eccentric lunar orbit to rendezvous with NASA’s Orion spacecraft and three Artemis astronauts.
As Blue Origin has exhaustively reminded anyone within earshot for the last five months, SpaceX’s Starship Moon lander proposal is extremely complex and NASA is taking an undeniable risk (of delays, not for astronauts) by choosing SpaceX. Nevertheless, NASA’s Kathy Lueders and a source evaluation panel made it abundantly clear in public selection statement that SpaceX’s proposal was by far the most competent, offering far a far superior management approach and technical risk no worse than Blue Origin’s far smaller, drastically less capable lander.
The bulk of Blue Origin’s argument appears to be that its National Team Lander proposal was drastically disadvantaged by the fact that SpaceX may or may not have incorrectly planned for just three ‘flight readiness reviews’ (FRRs) for each 16-launch HLS Starship mission. While heavily redacted, Blue Origin wants a judge to believe that contrary to the US Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) fair assessment that such a small issue is incredibly unlikely to have changed the competition’s outcome, it would have “been able to propose a substantially lower price” for its lander. To be clear, a flight readiness review is an admittedly important part of NASA’s safety culture, but it ultimately amounts to paperwork and doublechecks over the course of a day or two of meetings.
All else equal, the need to complete an FRR before a launch is incredibly unlikely to cause more than a few days of delays in a worst-case scenario and would have next to no cost impact. There is no reasonable way to argue that being allowed to complete some launches without an FRR would have singlehandedly allowed Blue Origin to “[engineer] and [propose] an entirely different architecture.” Nevertheless, that’s exactly what the company attempts to argue – that it would have radically and completely changed the design it spent more than half a billion dollars sketching out if it had only been able to skip a few reviews.
Curiously, Blue Origin nevertheless does make a few coherent and seemingly fact-based arguments in the document. Perhaps most notably, it claims that when NASA ultimately concluded that it didn’t have funds for even a single award (a known fact) and asked SpaceX – its first choice – to make slight contract modifications to make the financial side of things work, NASA consciously chose to waive the need for an FRR before every HLS Starship launch. Only via purported cost savings from those waived reviews, Blue Origin claims, was NASA able to afford SpaceX’s proposal – which, it’s worth noting, was more than twice as cheap as the next cheapest option (Blue Origin).
Ultimately, it thus appears that Blue Origin may have a case to make that NASA awarded SpaceX the HLS Option A contract despite a handful of errors that violated contracting rules and the HLS solicitation. Relative to just about any other possible issue, though, it’s hard not to perceive the problems Blue Origin may or may have correctly pointed out as anything more than marginal and extraordinarily unlikely to have changed the outcome in Blue’s favor had they been rectified before the award. Most importantly, even if Blue Origin’s argument is somehow received favorably and a judge orders NASA to overturn its SpaceX HLS award and reconsider all three proposals, it’s virtually inconceivable that even that best-case outcome would result in Blue Origin receiving a contract of any kind.
News
Tesla Robotaxi’s biggest rival sends latest statement with big expansion
The new expanded geofence now covers a broader region of Austin and its metropolitan areas, extended south to Manchaca and north beyond US-183.
Tesla Robotaxi’s biggest rival sent its latest statement earlier this month by making a big expansion to its geofence, pushing the limits up by over 50 percent and nearing Tesla’s size.
Waymo announced earlier this month that it was expanding its geofence in Austin by slightly over 50 percent, now servicing an area of 140 square miles, over the previous 90 square miles that it has been operating in since July 2025.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk shades Waymo: ‘Never really had a chance’
The new expanded geofence now covers a broader region of Austin and its metropolitan areas, extended south to Manchaca and north beyond US-183.
These rides are fully driverless, which sets them apart from Tesla slightly. Tesla operates its Robotaxi program in Austin with a Safety Monitor in the passenger’s seat on local roads and in the driver’s seat for highway routes.
It has also tested fully driverless Robotaxi services internally in recent weeks, hoping to remove Safety Monitors in the near future, after hoping to do so by the end of 2025.
Tesla Robotaxi service area vs. Waymo’s new expansion in Austin, TX. pic.twitter.com/7cnaeiduKY
— Nic Cruz Patane (@niccruzpatane) January 13, 2026
Although Waymo’s geofence has expanded considerably, it still falls short of Tesla’s by roughly 31 square miles, as the company’s expansion back in late 2025 put it up to roughly 171 square miles.
There are several differences between the two operations apart from the size of the geofence and the fact that Waymo is able to operate autonomously.
Waymo emphasizes mature, fully autonomous operations in a denser but smaller area, while Tesla focuses on more extensive coverage and fleet scaling potential, especially with the potential release of Cybercab and a recently reached milestone of 200 Robotaxis in its fleet across Austin and the Bay Area.
However, the two companies are striving to achieve the same goal, which is expanding the availability of driverless ride-sharing options across the United States, starting with large cities like Austin and the San Francisco Bay Area. Waymo also operates in other cities, like Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Orlando, Phoenix, and Atlanta, among others.
Tesla is working to expand to more cities as well, and is hoping to launch in Miami, Houston, Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Dallas.
Elon Musk
Tesla automotive will be forgotten, but not in a bad way: investor
It’s no secret that Tesla’s automotive division has been its shining star for some time. For years, analysts and investors have focused on the next big project or vehicle release, quarterly delivery frames, and progress in self-driving cars. These have been the big categories of focus, but that will all change soon.
Entrepreneur and Angel investor Jason Calacanis believes that Tesla will one day be only a shade of how it is recognized now, as its automotive side will essentially be forgotten, but not in a bad way.
It’s no secret that Tesla’s automotive division has been its shining star for some time. For years, analysts and investors have focused on the next big project or vehicle release, quarterly delivery frames, and progress in self-driving cars. These have been the big categories of focus, but that will all change soon.
I subscribed to Tesla Full Self-Driving after four free months: here’s why
Eventually, and even now, the focus has been on real-world AI and Robotics, both through the Full Self-Driving and autonomy projects that Tesla has been working on, as well as the Optimus program, which is what Calacanis believes will be the big disruptor of the company’s automotive division.
On the All-In podcast, Calcanis revealed he had visited Tesla’s Optimus lab earlier this month, where he was able to review the Optimus Gen 3 prototype and watch teams of engineers chip away at developing what CEO Elon Musk has said will be the big product that will drive the company even further into the next few decades.
Calacanis said:
“Nobody will remember that Tesla ever made a car. They will only remember the Optimus.”
He added that Musk “is going to make a billion of those.”
Musk has stated this point himself, too. He at one point said that he predicted that “Optimus will be the biggest product of all-time by far. Nothing will even be close. I think it’ll be 10 times bigger than the next biggest product ever made.”
He has also indicated that he believes 80 percent of Tesla’s value will be Optimus.
Optimus aims to totally revolutionize the way people live, and Musk has said that working will be optional due to its presence. Tesla’s hopes for Optimus truly show a crystal clear image of the future and what could be possible with humanoid robots and AI.
News
Tesla Robotaxi fleet reaches new milestone that should expel common complaint
There have been many complaints in the eight months that the Robotaxi program has been active about ride availability, with many stating that they have been confronted with excessive wait times for a ride, as the fleet was very small at the beginning of its operation.
Tesla Robotaxi is active in both the Bay Area of California and Austin, Texas, and the fleet has reached a new milestone that should expel a common complaint: lack of availability.
It has now been confirmed by Robotaxi Tracker that the fleet of Tesla’s ride-sharing vehicles has reached 200, with 158 of those being available in the Bay Area and 42 more in Austin. Despite the program first launching in Texas, the company has more vehicles available in California.
The California area of operation is much larger than it is in Texas, and the vehicle fleet is larger because Tesla operates it differently; Safety Monitors sit in the driver’s seat in California while FSD navigates. In Texas, Safety Monitors sit in the passenger’s seat, but will switch seats when routing takes them on the highway.
Tesla has also started testing rides without any Safety Monitors internally.
Tesla Robotaxi goes driverless as Musk confirms Safety Monitor removal testing
This new milestone confronts a common complaint of Robotaxi riders in Austin and the Bay, which is vehicle availability.
There have been many complaints in the eight months that the Robotaxi program has been active about ride availability, with many stating that they have been confronted with excessive wait times for a ride, as the fleet was very small at the beginning of its operation.
I attempted to take a @robotaxi ride today from multiple different locations and time of day (from 9:00 AM to about 3:00 PM in Austin but never could do so.
I always got a “High Service Demand” message … I really hope @Tesla is about to go unsupervised and greatly plus up the… pic.twitter.com/IOUQlaqPU2
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) November 26, 2025
With that being said, there have been some who have said wait times have improved significantly, especially in the Bay, where the fleet is much larger.
Robotaxi wait times here in Silicon Valley used to be around 15 minutes for me.
Over the past few days, they’ve been consistently under five minutes, and with scaling through the end of this year, they should drop to under two minutes. pic.twitter.com/Kbskt6lUiR
— Alternate Jones (@AlternateJones) January 6, 2026
Tesla’s approach to the Robotaxi fleet has been to prioritize safety while also gathering its footing as a ride-hailing platform.
Of course, there have been and still will be growing pains, but overall, things have gone smoothly, as there have been no major incidents that would derail the company’s ability to continue developing an effective mode of transportation for people in various cities in the U.S.
Tesla plans to expand Robotaxi to more cities this year, including Miami, Las Vegas, and Houston, among several others.
Tesla Robotaxi’s biggest rival sends latest statement with big expansion
Tesla automotive will be forgotten, but not in a bad way: investor
